T and R, Re (Refusal of Placement Order)

T and R, Re (Refusal of Placement Order)

The judge was entitled to conclude that adoption was not the only option to meet the children’s needs and that long-term fostering was preferable in this case, given the fundamental importance of sibling and parental contact and the maintenance of cultural heritage. The judge’s welfare analysis was clear, considered all relevant factors, and provided coherent reasons for departing from professional recommendations. There was no error of law or principle justifying appellate intervention.

Parties
Appellant: A Local Authority; Appellant: T and R (by their children’s guardian); Respondent: RS; Respondent: TL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal Family Law (adoption) / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal of Placement Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adoption, Placement Orders, Sibling Contact, Cultural Heritage, Best Interests of the Child
Family Law Child Law Adoption Placement Orders Sibling Contact Cultural Heritage Best Interests of the Child

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Appellant

T and R (by their children’s guardian)

Appellant

RS

Respondent

TL

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Family Law (adoption) / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal of Placement Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to make placement orders for adoption in respect of T and R was justified
  2. 2 Whether the judge gave sufficient weight to the advantages of adoption over long-term fostering
  3. 3 Whether the importance of sibling and parental contact and cultural heritage was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to conclude that adoption was not the only option to meet the children’s needs and that long-term fostering was preferable in this case, given the fundamental importance of sibling and parental contact and the maintenance of cultural heritage. The judge’s welfare analysis was clear, considered all relevant factors, and provided coherent reasons for departing from professional recommendations. There was no error of law or principle justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to make placement orders for T and R upheld
  • No direction given regarding representation of older siblings in future hearings